A close-up look at NYC education policy, politics,and the people who have been, are now, or will be affected by acts of corruption and fraud. ATR CONNECT assists individuals who suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool and are the "new" rubber roomers, and re-assigned. The terms "rubber room" and "ATR" mean that you or any person has been targeted for removal from your job. A "Rubber Room" is not a place, but a process.

Monday, June 1, 2015

ALERT: Attorney Jack Tillem described below by the Departmental Discipline Committee as unethical, and suspended from practicing law in 2008-2009, is NOT - and I repeat, NOT - Arbitrator Jack D. Tillem, an arbitrator for more than 30 years with an impeccable legal background and record.

Both parties have the same name, are from New York State, and are attorneys, but there is a mixup when the name Jack Tillem is searched on Google.

First, Jack D. Tillem and is a graduate of Columbia Law, Class of 1958. The nefarious Jack Tillem (no middle initial) graduated from NYU in 1962.

Second, Jack D. Tillem has practiced law and arbitration primarily from his office in Hicksville, NY for more than 35 years and years ago in the Bronx. Jack D. Tillem never practiced in Manhattan or Queens.

The suspended Jack Tillem practiced law in Queens and Manhattan.

Third, while they may be very distant relatives named after the same ancestor, the two have no relationship. This has been a case of mistaken identity for years.

Please be mindful of this ALERT if you are seeking an experienced Arbitrator. Jack D. Tillem is the man you want, not Jack Tillem, attorney, whose suspension is posted below!

Here is an interesting post from the UFT.org website about the REAL Jack Tillem, Arbitrator Jack D. Tillem, who was a member of the UFT/DOE 3020-a panel for many years:

Due process works for Bronx para

A District 75 paraprofessional in the Bronx who was terminated by the Department of Education in October 2010 is back in the classroom with full back pay and benefits after an arbitrator ruled that the DOE investigation resulting in her firing was “fatally flawed” and that the discharge was not based on “good and sufficient reason after due consideration.”

In filing the grievance, the UFT contended that the DOE violated the paraprofessional’s due-process rights as set out in the collective-bargaining agreement. UFT Special Representative for District 75 Jeff Huart declared the decision a “huge victory that clearly states that the contract is paramount in establishing guidelines that ensure our paras receive their due-process rights.”

The paraprofessional, who asked not to be named, had a five-year, unblemished record when she received the termination notice stating that “you lied to investigators” and notifying her that she had been put on the DOE ineligible list and blocked from any future employment in the city school system.

The determination that she lied was based solely on claims by an investigator with the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation of the New York City School District. That investigator concluded the paraprofessional had lied after questioning her on two occasions during his investigation of an unrelated case. Arbitrator Jack Tillem charged that the resulting termination was tantamount to the investigator “morphing into judge, jury and executioner.”

In her testimony at the arbitration hearing, Susan Holtzman, the counsel to the District 75 superintendent, acknowledged that she had accepted the special commissioner’s report accusing the paraprofessional of lying without further investigation and had drafted the letter of termination based solely on that report.

In his decision, the arbitrator noted that it was never made clear what the paraprofessional had lied about, nor was she allowed to confront the person who accused her of lying.

“The entire matter,” he wrote, “is marinated in hearsay.”

Citing the seriousness of Holtzman’s action, which deprived the paraprofessional of her livelihood, Tillem asked, “The question cannot help but nag: Wasn’t the grievant worth a separate investigation culminating in a separate report?”

UFT Grievance Department Director Ellen Gallin Procida characterized the termination as “an egregious lack of due process — a case of guilt by association designed to prove someone else guilty.”

She said the arbitrator’s reversal of the termination “upholds the contract’s guarantee of a paraprofessional’s right to an open-minded and fair investigation under the due-consideration safeguard.”

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on December 10, 1962. At all relevant times, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

On January 29, 2007, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee served respondent with formal charges in connection with his conduct towards a client Roger Crowley who had filed a complaint against respondent with the Committee. The four charges alleged that: by threatening suit and then bringing suit against a client and complainant to the Committee, respondent prejudiced the administration of justice in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (5), prejudiced or damaged his client in violation of DR 7-101 (a) (3), and sued merely to harass or maliciously injure another in violation of DR 7-102 (a) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.3, 1200.32, 1200.33) (charge one); by failing to appear on his own motion to dismiss without notice, and by failing to discontinue his lawsuit against Mr. Crowley, he violated DR 1-102 (a) (5) and DR 7-102 (a) (1) (charge two); by neglecting Mr. Crowley's legal matter and failing to return an unearned fee, he violated DR 6-101 (a) (3) and DR 2-110 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30, 1200.15) (charge three); and by engaging in all of the conduct specified, he engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102 (a) (7) (charge four).

Respondent submitted an answer on February 6, 2007, denying all of the charges and alleging that there was never an attorney-client relationship with Crowley; that the complaint was Mr. Crowley's attempt to extort money from him; that the Committee was aware he intended to sue Mr. Crowley but never protested or cautioned him about his intention to sue Mr. Crowley; that the statute of limitations had run on the proceedings; and that the lawsuit was based on fact and was not retaliatory.

The Referee's hearing commenced with the hearing and determination of respondent's motion in limine, which was denied by the Referee except as to respondent's request for an adjournment of proceedings. Thereafter, the Referee held two days of hearings on the charges at which Mr. Crowley testified and 19 exhibits were offered into evidence. Respondent, who appeared pro se, did not testify, called no witnesses, and had one exhibit marked for identification.

[56 A.D.3d 96]
Based upon the evidence before him the Referee found that, in July 2000, Roger Crowley, an architect, received an unsolicited telephone call from a woman representing the Alliance Group offering to help him collect a $2,000 judgment he had obtained in Small Claims Court. After speaking to one John Cooper and receiving some faxed printed matter with the heading "Alliance Partners Group" and "Alliance Legal Access," Mr. Crowley signed a contract with Alliance and paid a $450 fee. Some 60 days later, when he called to find out how the collection was going, Crowley was told by Cooper that the matter had been turned over to the legal staff and Cooper gave him respondent's name and suggested that he call respondent in about 10 days at Alliance. Thereafter, despite numerous conversations with respondent over the course of 2001, in which he gave various excuses for the lack of progress and assured Mr. Crowley that the collection matter would move forward, Mr. Crowley wrote to Cooper and respondent at Alliance's address on January 23, 2002, demanding a refund and telling respondent that he was going to report him to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee.

In response to the letter, respondent called Mr. Crowley and wanted to know why he was being threatened and what Crowley wanted. Crowley told respondent that his $450 fee should be returned because he had received no services for the past year. When asked about Alliance, respondent denied any association with them and told Crowley that if he complained about him he would sue him for whatever he was worth. Although respondent offered to continue helping to collect the debt, Crowley refused and, in February 2002, wrote a letter of complaint to the Committee.

Respondent answered the disciplinary complaint, stating that he did not represent Crowley, and, a few weeks later, respondent served Mr. Crowley with a summons and complaint seeking $1.75 million in compensatory and punitive damages based on his having filed a "bogus complaint with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee . . . all to the [p]laintiff's damage . . . for extortion, damage to the plaintiff's reputation, mental anguish, and business loss." Mr. Crowley appeared pro se and served an answer whereupon respondent served a demand for interrogatories. At that point, Crowley offered to withdraw the disciplinary complaint if respondent terminated the litigation. When no response was received, Crowley withdrew his offer and served an amended answer. Respondent then served Crowley
[56 A.D.3d 97]
with a motion to dismiss returnable July 22, 2002. Crowley prepared a cross motion which he brought to court on the return date. After sitting through the entire calendar call without respondent's motion being called, the court clerk informed Crowley that there was no record of the case. Crowley, who had not spoken to respondent since that February, had received no notice from respondent prior to the return date that the matter was not on the court's calendar.

The Referee found Mr. Crowley "completely credible" and, in rejecting respondent's contention that there was no attorneyclient relationship between the two of them because there was no written document or payment of a fee, found:"[t]he documents indicate the retention of Alliance by Crowley. Respondent admitted sharing offices with Alliance, (admitting that he was a sub-tenant) having a desk and telephone, with his name on the door and paying no rent, except rendering legal service in the nature of opinions on collectability of debts. He admitted speaking to Crowley on the phone but never met him. He admitted taking referrals from Alliance and representing them when his own interest was involved e.g. defending an ejectment action against the landlord . . . , and forming a corporation for them. In addition Respondent never gave Crowley an address or phone number other than Alliance's and his pleadings in the Supreme Court action against Crowley contained that same address."

The Referee sustained charge one, finding that respondent had threatened Crowley with a lawsuit and then brought an action against a complainant to the Committee. The Referee concluded that such conduct was adverse to the administration of justice, it prejudiced or damaged a client in the course of a professional relationship, and by filing suit, it was obviously meant to harass or maliciously injure another (DR 1-102 [a] [5]; DR 7-101 [a] [3]; DR 7-102 [a] [1]). The Referee noted that, during his deposition, respondent stated: "I think I sued him because what he did is, he complained here [to the Committee], number one."

In sustaining charge two, the Referee noted that respondent instituted an action and, during the course of it, he served a notice of motion for summary judgment and failed to inform Crowley that it had not been placed on the calendar for the return
[56 A.D.3d 98]
date. Crowley, pro se, sat through the entire calendar call before discovering that the matter was not on, and respondent failed to pursue or discontinue his suit for damages and punitive damages against Crowley. Accordingly the Referee found respondent had violated DR 1-102 (a) (5) and DR 7-102 (a) (1). The Referee also sustained charge four, finding that all of the aforementioned conduct adversely reflected on respondent's fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102 (a) (7).

The Referee did not sustain charge three because he found that there was no proof that respondent participated in the fee paid to Alliance nor that he was personally obligated to return the unearned fee. While there was some evidence that respondent neglected Crowley's collection matter, "over all" the Referee could not sustain all aspects of that charge.

During the sanction phase of the hearing, the Committee introduced as aggravating factors four admonitions previously issued to respondent dating back to 1992, two of which the Referee noted were "particularly relevant." Although the Referee did not elaborate, one admonition respondent received included a specific warning against harassing a debtor respondent was pursuing in violation of DR 7-102 (a) (1), one of the charges sustained by the Referee herein. Another admonition included a finding of a lack of credible evidence for respondent's explanation of his conduct in another matter. In addition the Referee concluded:"[a]nother factor was Respondent's lack of candor with the Committee and at the Hearing. He had many arguments but would not testify under oath. His misunderstanding of the law with respect to [b]urden of proof should have been assuaged after the first session when I informed him that the Court of Appeals had already ruled that the [b]urden was a fair preponderance of the evidence, unless he was attempting to use this case to raise the question again in this Department."He tried to distance himself from the individuals who were Alliance. He said they all used assumed names and he tried to stay away from them, especially after being involved as a material witness for the District Attorney of Duchess County against Alliance. Yet he continued to use their facilities and their address.
[56 A.D.3d 99]
"His accusations of misbehavior by the Staff and his abusive cross-examination of the complaining witness indicated his failure to acknowledge any misconduct on his part."There was no evidence of mitigating factors. Respondent offered no testimony, called no witnesses, offered no character letters, although invited by me to do so, nor produced documentary proof of health problems. In argument, he often referred to his health problems but said, in final argument, that age and health problems should not be considered in mitigation."I find no merit in Respondent's argument that he could not withdraw his action against Crowley without getting into trouble with the Committee. All he had to do was discontinue, without any quid pro quo."I agree with the Staff that a suspension of Respondent is indicated. I also agree with the recommendation of a one year period. Respondent has stated that he is 95% retired and is just winding up some unfinished collection cases. A more severe penalty, under the circumstances, is not necessary. However, the profession has to be reminded that this sort of behavior may not be tolerated. In Matter of Levy, 37 N.Y.2d 279, it was held that while a disciplinary hearing has punitive aspects, the main purpose is the public interest."

A Hearing Panel subsequently heard oral argument and in a report agreed with the Referee's findings on the charges and concurred with the recommended sanction of a one year suspension. The Panel found that respondent's baseless suit against Crowley interfered with the disciplinary process and was intentional conduct that prejudiced a client, in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Panel concluded that respondent's conduct in suing Mr. Crowley and then abandoning his motion without notice maximized the burden and inconvenience to a pro se party.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (d) confirming the Referee's and the Hearing Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and sanction recommendation, and suspending respondent from the practice of law for no less than one year.

[56 A.D.3d 100]
Respondent, pro se, opposes the petition in its entirety, arguing, among other things: his demand for discovery and an adjournment was wrongfully denied; prosecutorial misconduct by the Committee; the findings of misconduct were not supported by the credible evidence; reversible errors were committed by the Referee; the complaint was five years old when acted upon and the Committee had prior notice of his intention to sue the complainant but did nothing; and a vigorous defense does not constitute lack of remorse or an admission of guilt as found by the Referee.

In reply, the Committee argues that respondent has restated as "reversible error" virtually every objection and argument made by him and rejected by the Referee and the Hearing Panel, including the claims of wrongful denial of discovery, prosecutorial misconduct, coaching of the witness, and denial of his ability to question Mr. Crowley about his "alternative lifestyle." It points out that, although respondent was given ample opportunity to present his defense, he declined to call any witnesses or to testify on his own behalf, instead offering only one exhibit, a blank Committee complaint form. The Committee also contends that respondent has failed to offer any support for his allegation that the witness's testimony was "doctored" and cites no case law to support his claim that his defenses to the charges are valid or that reversible errors were made. Respondent did not present any evidence in mitigation and, as he did before the Committee, has not offered any legal argument or precedent to support a less severe sanction.

The evidence shows that respondent threatened to sue Mr. Crowley when he advised respondent that he would complain to the Committee about respondent's failure to bring a collection suit on his behalf as promised. Within weeks of receipt of Crowley's disciplinary complaint, respondent followed through with his threat and sued Crowley for $1.75 million specifying that the damages were due to the fact that Mr. Crowley had complained to the Committee about him. Respondent then served Crowley with interrogatories and a motion for summary judgment, which, without notifying Crowley, he never placed on the court calendar.

Although there are no cases directly on point, we find that, in light of numerous aggravating factors, the recommended one year suspension is an appropriate sanction for respondent's intentional harassment of a former client which interfered with the disciplinary process.

[56 A.D.3d 101]
In determining an appropriate sanction, the Referee and Hearing Panel properly considered cases involving attorneys who had commenced harassing or frivolous lawsuits against individuals (Matter of Gadye, 283 A.D.2d 1 [2001]; Matter of Yao, 250 A.D.2d 221 [1998]), and attorneys who interfered with the disciplinary process by either asking the complainants to withdraw their disciplinary grievance or offered them money to do so (Matter of Smith, 120 A.D.2d 208 [1986], appeal dismissed and lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 983 [1987];Matter of Goldberg, 82 A.D.2d 572 [1981]). A case involving an attorney who used harassing tactics against a pro se party in violation of the Code was also considered (Matter of Heller, 9 A.D.3d 221 [2004],lv denied 3 N.Y.3d 607 [2004]).

In addition, the Referee concluded that there were several factors in aggravation and no factors in mitigation. Respondent's disciplinary history consisted of four prior admonitions (one of which included a warning against harassing a debtor), he showed no remorse and failed to acknowledge his misconduct as evidenced by his "abusive" cross examination of the witness, and he lacked candor with the Committee and before the Referee. The one year suspension on balance is a sufficient sanction for the misconduct at issue and gives notice to thebar that this behavior will not be tolerated.

Accordingly, the petition should be granted, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Referee and the Hearing Panel and the recommended sanction should be confirmed, and respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for a period of one year and until further order of this Court.

Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for a period of one year, effective the date hereof and until further order of this Court.

Testimonials From Some of Our Clients

“Dear Betsy,
I am forever indebted to you, Betsy, for your expert advice throughout a horrific ordeal. You worked tirelessly to prove my innocence in a 3020a proceeding that was instigated by a corrupt school district and fueled by lies. My proceedings ended with my complete exoneration, my record expunged and my immediate return to the classroom. We didn’t even need to file an appeal! Thank you, Betsy. I am now eligible to retire and enjoy the benefits you helped me to protect. God bless you and the work you do protecting the innocent
Maria G;

Alexandra F.

Dear Betsy,

I just wanted to reach out and say thank you for CONSTANTLY being there for me throughout such a tumultuous time in my life. I have been battling severe harassment at my place of work for months now, and you have advised me through every single second of it. I would not have had the strength or confidence to battle such an evil administration without your help. You have answered my phone calls from 7AM through nearly midnight with any and all of my concerns. I have called you countless times to just vent, or even cry, and you have been there with open arms to pivot my negative anticipations into positive advocacy. You have gone above and beyond your line of duty to help me, and for that, I can never repay you. You have changed the outcome of my life, and led me to justice. More importantly, you have led me to happiness again, for which I am eternally grateful. As I am getting older, I am realizing that there are many bad people in this world, but you are TRULY one of the good ones. When one finds a great person in life with their true best interest at heart, they should hold onto that and take their word as bond. My last statement truly defines you, an expert in what you do, as well as a 24 hour support system. You are amazing Betsy, and my life would truly not be the same if you had not stepped into it!!!!!

Thank you again for EVERYTHING you have done for me. Your advisement and care will be carried in my heart for the rest of my life.

Alexandra F.

Tollyne D.

After 18 years of service, the general consensus as a union member is that you cannot trust people and you have to be extremely careful who you talk to. I was brought up being told that I should be sure that the person I am speaking to is knowledgeable and to be TRUSTED, and Betsy Combier is such a person. She consistently proves that she is trustworthy, very knowledgeable and caring, time and time again.

Tollyne D.

David P.

To whom this may concern,
I want to recommend Betsy Combier as the best person you could have in your corner. From the first day I met Betsy I felt secure. I had the misfortune of having to go through a 3020a hearing and with help of Ms. Combier my job was secure, I don’t know where I would be without Betsy’s help and support. She is still assisting me with my federal case. I could not recommend Betsy any higher, she is a person of her word, and her expertise is important and necessary for everyone without any problem.
David P.

Jason R.

I met Betsy Combier approximately about 5 years ago, as a result of a recommendation from a colleague. Since then she has been an advocate of mine ever since, and has worked above and beyond my expectation. Betsy fights against the wrongdoing of public education officials in New York City. Throughout the extremely difficult arbitration, Betsy fought for my unalienable rights, even though my former principal did everything in her power to tarnish my name and damage my career.
Betsy is not an attorney yet she has the experience and knowledge that is above and beyond that of an attorney and follows through on all issues. She is truly an angel from heaven above, and a quality public defender.

Laura B.

I was charged with a 3020A in October 2016 after receiving three developing ratings in a row. I called numerous law firms as well as my union. Most people who I talked to said that I should settle because I was fighting a losing battle. A lawyer told me that anyone that says you can win a 3020A is a liar. I heard about Betsy from a teacher placed in my building who was going through the 3020A process. I hired Betsy and one of the Attorneys who works with her and her company, and won my case! Betsy saved my job and saved my life because she was emotionally supportive at a time when I needed it the most. Betsy goes above and beyond for her clients. She is readily available day and night for her clients. Betsy’s knowledge of education law is exceptional and she was a great help to my attorney. Betsy is relentless and fights hard for her clients.

ADVOCATZ

Contact me with a concern or issue

I assist anyone who needs help, so email me your problem to start the ball rolling! I am a teacher/parent advocate, and I am the editor/writer for this blog and the website parentadvocates.org. I also write about court corruption on my blog "NYC Court Corruption". I am interested in random injustice and the criminalizing of innocent people. If you want to chat you may email me at: betsy.combier@gmail.com and I'm on twitter and have a facebook page too. I'm not an attorney and do not give legal advice.

If you want to talk with me about your 3020-a charges, I consult and go over your case without charge. No fee.

And, in response to the lies of certain individuals who resent my work, the truth is that all conversations are confidential and I do not tape secretly.

Betsy Combier

My Thoughts and Raison d'etre

This blog is about the denial of Constitutional rights by the Mayor, the New York City Department of Education and the Chancellor, New York State and Federal Courts, New York State legislature, and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), as well as PACs and all parties participating in the business of public school education in New York City, to harm and in neglect of parents, children, and staff of public schools in the five boroughs. These thoughts are not simply mindless conclusions reached out of thin air, but a result of 14 years of research into the NYC DOE and the Courts as a reporter and paralegal.
I am an advocate of Unions and union rights, public schools and charters, and learning online as well as outside of the classroom. I cannot and do not support anyone, whether they be union management, government, private members of the political or legal system, or simply retired teachers with an agenda, if he or she tramples, discards, or rebuffs anyone's individual civil rights. As a reporter, journalist, advocate, researcher and paralegal, I have created this blog to inform the public about my experience working for the UFT and being the parent of four daughters who went through the public school system in NYC, as well as examine issues that flow from the massive denial of due process rights that I saw and have documented. The two most important points you should remember: first, everyone at the New York City Board/Department of Education and all Union bigs are motivated by power and money, and looking good. If anyone dares to blow the whistle on these racketeers, retaliation follows, so be a strategist; second, I am not an Attorney and nothing I write or say is legal advice, simply my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Betsy Combier, Editor
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com
New York Court Corruption
http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
Parentadvocates.org
http://www.parentadvocates.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/betsy.combier
Twitter: http://twitter.com/BetsyCombier
The NYC Public Voice
http://nycpublicvoice.blogspot.com/betsy.combier@gmail.com
Lawline July 27, 2011
http://www.teachem.com/lawlinetv/learn/lawline-tv-teachers-unions-the-last-in-first-out-rule/

Principal Anne Seifullah changes her image so that she can keep her job amidst sexting and trysts in the school, Robert Wagner Secondary Sch...

Google + Rubber Room Community

FAITH

When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly. Patrick Overton

Truth Seeks Light - Lies Seek Shadows

sayin like it is

Actions Have Consequences

Writing as Music

Rubber Room teachers wish me a happy birthday (2006)

"Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all."

- Aristotle

Important Numbers

Amy Arundel (ATR Point Person) 212-510-6468

UFT www.uft.org

OPI (Problem Code) 1-718-935-2666

UFT Certification Services 1-212-420-1830

Teachers REtirement System 1-888-869-2877

Mandated Reporters 1-800-635-1522

Staten Island UFT 1-718-605-1400

Brooklyn UFT 1-718-852-4900

Bronx UFT 1-718-379-6200

Manhattan UFT 1-212-598-6800

Queens UFT 1-718-275-4400

Rubber Room Satire

The Labor Movement

The Teaching Equation

We Can Work Out Our Differences

The E-Accountability Foundation

The E-Accountability Foundation brings you this blog which highlights issues that have or should be read by people interested in civil rights, and accountability. The E-Accountability Foundation is a 501(C)3 organization that holds people accountable for their actions online and, through the internet, seeks to bring justice to anyone who has been harmed without reason. We give the'A for Accountability' Awardto those who are willing to blow the whistle on unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status.

AddThis

Performance Management - Office of Labor Relations

From Betsy Combier

The NYC Office of Labor Relations, with the support of the UFT, has issued to principals a document called"Performance Management" on how to get rid of an incompetent teacher. Who is an "incompetent teacher"? Anyone the NYC Department of Education wants to remove from the system because he/she is too senior (makes too much money), is disabled (and therefore cannot be deemed factory-perfect) and/or is other impaired (is a whistleblower, cannot be intimidated, is ethnically challenged - not the 'right' race, etc).

Candace R. McLaren

Director, Office of Special Investigations (OSI)

Follow by Email

Polo Colon

"Rubber Room"

(1) a space where a worker subject to a disciplinary hearing or other administrative action waits and does no work; generally, a place or personal mind-set of isolation.(2) a literal reference to a padded cell, which is, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, “a room in a psychiatric hospital with padded walls to prevent violent patients from injuring themselves.”from Double-Tongued Dictionary http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/rubber_room/

"Rubberization"

The word "rubberization" is a new word that is used to describe the process of assigning and paying people to sit and do nothing in a drab room away from their place of employment while their employers make up charges that allege sexual or corporal misconduct without any facts upon which to base the allegation on.

Email Subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz

Theresa Europe, NYC BOE ATU Director

Robin Greenfield

Deputy Counsel to the NYC DOE

UFT Pres. Mike Mulgrew and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg

UFT umbrella pals

New York State Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez

ATR CONNECT

Tenured Teachers who are found to be guilty of misconduct or incompetency at 3020-a but are not terminated, who have blown the whistle on the misconduct of politically favored NYC Department of Education employees, and/or who are simply disliked for any reason can suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool - employees without rights or voices, and without chapter leader union representation.

This new group of people are the "new" rubber roomers without representation at the UFT and denied the protection of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, because basically they have been pushed out of their jobs unfairly and under color of law by Mayor Bloomberg and the Chief Executives of the Department of Education who call themselves "Chancellors", "Network Leaders", "Superintendents", etc., consistently without any facts or evidence to support the false claims.

A group of teachers who are, or were, made into ATRs, ATR Polo Colon, and I, Betsy Combier, an advocate for transparency and labor/employment rights, have joined together to expose the denial of due process, civil and human rights by chiefs of the NYC Department of Education (NYC DOE), certain arbitrators at 3020-a, leaders of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), the "investigators" -agents who work for the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI), Office of Special Investigation (OSI), and the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) - and the Attorneys who work for the New York United Teachers (NYSUT), and the New York Law Department (Corporation Counsel).

In order to protect the safety of those who join this group to promote an end to the "Rubberization" process described on this blog since 2007, names of those who tell their stories will, for now, remain anonymous if the person so desires, and Polo and I will be the gatekeepers. So if you are an ATR, or know a story involving an ATR or someone re-assigned or about to go into a 3020-a, please use the email address advocatz77@gmail.com and give us your contact information. We will protect your anonymity and hold onto your privacy.

Betsy Combier and Polo Colon, Editors

FAITH When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly.

Patrick Overton

We have forty million reasons for failure but not a single excuse.Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The Re-Assignment Overview by Betsy Combier

The New York City Board of Education decided in 2002 to rid the public school system of staff who interfered with their takeover and control. The criteria for a "good teacher" is now, more often than not, a "silent teacher", a person who never asks questions, is younger than 40, is making a salary below $50,000, does not care about kids and what they learn, or whether or not money (books, supplies, equipment, etc) is missing. When a teacher or staff member of a school dares to do the right thing and speaks out about wrong-doing - this person is often called a "whistleblower" or "flamethrower" - or, simply is not liked for any reason by the Principal/NYC personnel, suddenly he/she is accused of something by somebody ("given a label of "A", "B", "C", and so on) and whisked away to a drab room called a temporary re-assignment center or "rubber room". Members of the offices of the Special Commissioner of Investigation or the Office of Special Investigations then start work on building a case against the person to justify their being thrown in prison, declared "unfit for duty", or, as Mr. Joel Klein has said, characterized as "guilty of sexual activities and corporal punishment" against the children of New York City.The stories of the people I have met who sit every day in the 8 rubber rooms of NYC prove to me that Mr. Klein is very wrong about his assessment, and this blog is created to prove it to you.

Puppy Snooze

US Department of Labor ELAWS

Aeri Pang, Gotcha Squad Attorney

Attorney Pang, red dress, now chief Attorney For New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

NYC EdStats You Can Use

$12.5 billion: Annual New York City Department of Education (DOE) budget (2002)

$21 billion: Annual New York City DOE budget (2009)
1,719: Number officials employed by the DOE central administration in June 2002

2,442: Number of officials employed by the central administration as of November 2008

2: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2004.

22: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2007.

5: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2003.

23: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2008.

944: Number of contracts approved by DOE in 2008, at a total cost of $1.9 billion.

20: Percentage of contracts that exceeded estimated cost by at least 25 percent.

$67.5 million: Annual budget of Project Arts, a decade-old program that was the sole source of dedicated funding for arts education. It was eliminated in 2007.

86: Percentage of principals who said in a 2008 poll that they were unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes in their schools.

100,000: Number of seats DOE plans to provide for charter school students by 2012.

25,000: Number of seats DOE plans to build under 2010 to 2014 capital plan.

66,895: Number of K-3 school-children in classes of 25 or more during the 2008-09 school year.

15,440: Average number of seats per year built during the last six years of the Rudolph Giuliani administration.

10,895: Average number of seats per year built during the first six years of the Bloomberg administration.

27.2: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were Black.

14.1: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were Black.

53.3: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were white.

65.5: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were white.

76: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Latino students in 8th grade English Language Arts (ELA) in 2003.

75: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic students in 8th grade ELA in 2008.

77: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2003.

81: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2008.

54: Percentage of New York City public school parents who disapproved of Mayor Bloomberg’s handling of education, according to a March 2009 Quinnipiac poll.

Sources: New York City Council, New York City Comptroller’s Office, New York Daily News, New York Post, Eduwonkette, Quinnipiac Institute, Black Educator, Class Size Matters, New York City Schools Under Bloomberg and Klein.

Betsy Combier and NYSUT lawyer Chris Callagy

The New York City Whistle Award

NYC Whistlers, Winners of the NYC Whistle Award

...are those individuals in New York City who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. Whistlers ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up.

These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions.

Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

Betsy Combier

Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon

Condon "qualified" for his current post after Bloomberg lowered standards; who will leash him?

A great teacher

After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said: 'Let me see if I've got this right.

'You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.

'You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.

'You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job 'You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.

'You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.

'You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletinboard, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps. 'You want me to do all this and then you tell me. . . I CAN'T PRAY?

NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly

Joel Klein's famous statement about rubber room teachers and staff

On November 27, 2006, temporarily re-assigned teacher (TRT) Polo Colon asked Joel Klein, the "pretend" Chancellor of the NYC public school system, if he had voted to terminate teachers at the secret Executive Session held just before the public meeting of the Panel For Educational Policy.Mr. Klein answered,"We did not vote to terminate you. We did vote to terminate a teacher in executive Session...in fact, we voted to terminate two teachers. It's perfectly consistent with the law.Many teachers have been charged with sexual activities and some are charged with corporal punishment...I have no interest in removing people who are qualified to teach, I can assure you, because I dont get any return...and in fact, I have complained publicly about how long this process drags out. But our first concern will always be and, as a former lawyer and somebody who clerked on the United States Supreme Court I will tell you, there is no violation of due process whatsoever..."- extracted from the audiotape of the PEP meeting bought by Betsy Combier after filing a FOIL request to the NYC BOE

Rally November 2008 at Tweed

November 26, 2007 Candelight Vigil

Thousands of teachers and school staff members rally at Tweed

A Review of Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools by Betsy Combier

Lydia Segal's book puts the NYC, Chicago, and California Departments of Education on notice....we who have read this book know more about how the system is not there for our kids than "you" want us to know. Lydia Segal's book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools changes the public school reform movement forever. We can no longer assume that more money allocated to our schools will "fix" the disaster that is our public school system.

Lydia Segal draws on her 10 years of undercover investigation and research in over five urban school districts, including the three largest, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and the two most decentralized, Houston and Edmonton, Canada, to provide, in her new book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools, the details of the corruption, theft, fraud, and patronage that has overrun our public school establishment for several decades. There is no question that anyone who is interested in school reform -this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first - must read this book. Ms. Segal's research and information on the education establishment's 'dark' side outrages the reader, and incites us to demand change. Her book therefore, is much more than a book, it is a call to action. We cannot be bystanders any longer to the systemic abuse she so vividly describes, and we will never be able to listen in the same way ever again to school Principals, Superintendents, school custodians or district board members as they request more money "to help the children."

The book's detailed reports on the corruption and crime in our public schools, supported by 52 pages of interview notes, references and specific examples, provide irrefutable evidence that the current failures of our nation's public schools are not due to the lack of money but the impossibility of getting the money to the children who need it and for whom the money is allocated in the first place. Recent statistics show that students of all ages are not learning what they need to know, schools are overcome with violence, teachers are demoralized, and yet billions of dollars are literally shovelled into the system every year. The New York City school system receives more than $16 billion every year; Los Angeles, $7 billion; and Chicago, $3.6 billion. Where does this money go? We have all asked this question as we have walked through school hallways dodging the paint falling off the walls and ceilings, watching our children sitting on broken chairs, using bathrooms without running water or toilet paper, and struggling to achieve their personal best without the services and resources they are supposed to have. Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools is the first book ever to systematically examine school waste and corruption and how to fight it. Ms. Segal, an undercover school investigator turned law professor, documents where the money goes, how waste and fraud embedded in the operation of large school bureaucracies siphon money from classrooms, distort educational priorities, block initiatives, and what we can do to bring badly-needed change. She describes in detail how only a small percentage of the money allocated to students in our public schools actually gets used by them due to corruption and waste, and how city school systems scoring lowest on standardized tests tend to have the biggest criminal records and most payroll padding. Coding problems, the procurement process, compartmentalization and opacity of information leave administrators with only two options: good corruption (which ultimately helps the kids) and bad corruption (which never helps anyone but the perpetrator and his/her allies and accomplices). Indeed, the system fights those who try the good corruption route.

Ms. Segal argues that the problem is not usually bad people, but a bad system that focuses on process at the expense of results. Decades of rules and regulations along with layers of top-down supervision make it so hard to do business with school systems that they encourage the very fraud and waste they were designed to curb. She tells us about how the "godfathers" and "godmothers" (the school board members) obtain jobs for their "pieces" in order to protect the systemic waste and fraud from being dismantled or exposed. Fortunately, she writes, there are good people involved in the corruption as well who must violate the rules in order to get their jobs done. Nonetheless, absurdities abound: school systems following rules to save every penny spend thousands of dollars hunting down checks as small as $25; it takes so long to pay vendors for their work that some have to bribe school officials to move their checks along; caring Principals who want to fix leaky toilets may have to pay workers under the table because submitting a work order through the central office could, and often does, take years. Meanwhile, those who pilfer from classrooms get away with it because the pyramidal structure of large districts makes schools inherently difficult to oversee. What makes Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools a must-read is not only the fascinating - and depressing - details of the systemic wrong-doing but also Ms. Segal's suggestions for reform, based on the proven track records of school systems across North America that have successfully reduced waste and fraud and have pushed more resources into schools.

The pathology of the corruption suggests the remedy, Ms. Segal says, which is decentralization of power into the schools and the hands of the Principals. Distilling what successful school systems have done, Segal advocates new forms of oversight that do not clog up school systems and recommends giving principals more discretion over their school budgets as well as holding them accountable for job performance. She argues for "autonomy in exchange for performance accountability" as part of a bold, far-reaching plan for reclaiming our schools. Her conclusion is logical and convincing. Everyone who reads this book will find his or her perception of public school education changed forever. We cannot accept any longer that a generation of children has been abused by a system that is so full of greed and corruption without screaming "stop!" and "Your game is up!"

Segal reveals how systemic waste and fraud siphon millions of dollars from urban classrooms and shows how money is lost in systems that focus on process rather than on results, as well as how regulations established to curb waste and fraud provide perverse incentives for new forms of both. Anyone who is interested in school reform--this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school, and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first--must read this book. --

Lydia G. Segal is Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.

The NYC BOE FAMIS Online Tour

The FAMIS Portal Online Tour provides an overview and demonstration of the FAMIS Portal. Computer speakers or headphones are recommended. Choose an item of interest below, or click on the Introduction to proceed through all of the modules in sequence.

About Me

Reporter, paralegal, advocate,I will investigate, search on the internet and in all data bases for information that will help a person in need of resolution to a problem.I believe in substantive and procedural due process for all individuals, groups and organizations and trademarked the term "e-accountability" to describe the purpose of my work. I am the parent of four daughters.

Statcounter

Testimonials From Some of Our Clients

Dear Betsy,
I am forever indebted to you, Betsy, for your expert advice throughout a horrific ordeal. You worked tirelessly to prove my innocence in a 3020a proceeding that was instigated by a corrupt school district and fueled by lies. My proceedings ended with my complete exoneration, my record expunged and my immediate return to the classroom. We didn’t even need to file an appeal! Thank you, Betsy. I am now eligible to retire and enjoy the benefits you helped me to protect. God bless you and the work you do protecting the innocent.-Maria G.
To whom this may concern,
I want to recommend Betsy Combier as the best person you could have in your corner. From the first day I met Betsy I felt secure. I had the misfortune of having to go through a 3020a hearing and with help of Ms. Combier my job was secure, I don’t know where I would be without Betsy’s help and support. She is still assisting me with my federal case. I could not recommend Betsy any higher, she is a person of her word, and her expertise is important and necessary for everyone with any problem-David P.
I met Betsy Combier approximately about 5 years ago, as a result of a recommendation from a colleague. Since then she has been an advocate of mine ever since, and has worked above and beyond my expectation. Betsy fights against the wrongdoing of public education officials in New York City. Throughout the extremely difficult arbitration, Betsy fought for my unalienable rights, even though my former principal did everything in her power to tarnish my name and damage my career.
Betsy is not an attorney yet she has the experience and knowledge that is above and beyond that of an attorney and follows through on all issues. She is truly an angel from heaven above, and a quality public defender.-Jason R.
I was charged with a 3020A in October 2016 after receiving three developing ratings in a row. I called numerous law firms as well as my union. Most people who I talked to said that I should settle because I was fighting a losing battle. A lawyer told me that anyone that says you can win a 3020A is a liar. I heard about Betsy from a teacher placed in my building who was going through the 3020A process. I hired Betsy and one of the Attorneys who works with her and her company, and won my case! Betsy saved my job and saved my life because she was emotionally supportive at a time when I needed it the most. Betsy goes above and beyond for her clients. She is readily available day and night for her clients. Betsy’s knowledge of education law is exceptional and she was a great help to my attorney. Betsy is relentless and fights hard for her clients. -Laura B.

Site Meter

Disclaimer

This page states the general terms of use under which you, the blog visitor (hereinafter "you", "user", or "visitor") may use NYCrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com. By reading this blog, you agree to all of the terms set forth below. You may reprint, copy, and use any article on this website as long as you do not sell or change the article and you cite this blog as your source. This blog reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to change any or all of the provisions of this "Terms of Use & Disclaimer Agreement" at any time; the agreement in effect at the time of your use shall govern your use and your use after the effective date of any changes to these Terms will be deemed acceptance of your acceptance of the changes. We have followed what we believe to be the guidelines of US Code TITLE 17, Chapter 1, Section 107: FAIR USE: "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." We will, if asked with good reason to remove any material from our site that the original owner feels may jeopardize their standing before the Law, do so. We oppose violence of any kind, disrespect, verbal or physical abuse, and any kind of theft or hurtful behavior toward anyone at any time, and expect all users of this blog to be mindful of these values and use the information we have collected in good faith. We have made every effort to describe the actions, not motives, of public people, and we have supported everything that we post with documents to prove the validity of what we say in order to not make any fraudulent or false claims. We believe that it is a civic duty to expose wrong-doing, and we have the legal right to name the perpetrators who pursue illegal activities as defined by the respondents to their actions. If a public official or employee writes, says, or does anything that is against the Laws of this country or that falsifies data which leads to the intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, verbal and/or physical abuse of a student/parent/teacher, we claim license to post the acts of such people on our website, with the name of the perpetrator. The truth is not defamatory. We claim that we are not "out to get" any particular person.You agree that you do not acquire any ownership rights in any downloaded content. You further agree that all rights in the site and any of the content found on the site not granted to you under this agreement are expressly reserved to the editor. You agree to not extract any content in order to repurpose or resell the site's content or tools, and you agree to not "scrape" and/or reformat any information without the written permission of the editor. This blog protects and enforces copyrights for its' own creative material and respects the copyright property of others, as well as our right to "FAIR USE". We do not permit materials known by us to be infringing on the copyright of others to be on the site, and we ask that you notify us promptly if you believe that any materials infringe upon a third-party copyright. Upon receipt of a proper notice of claimed infringement under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) we will respond promptly to remove or disable access to the material claimed to be infringing that is in our direct control, assuming that there is also infringement of FAIR USE. This agreement and any policies and rules posted on this blog constitute the complete and exclusive and final expression of the agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. No waiver by the editor of this blog or you of any breach or default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or subsequent breach or default.This blog provides as a service homepages of websites we believe may be helpful to the user; we provide these links and resources solely as a convenience to you, the user, and we do not endorse the content of these sites. We are not responsible for the content of any linked sites and make no representations regarding the content or accuracy of materials on these sites. If you visit any sites linked to this site, you do so at your own risk. We will not assume any responsibility for the servicing or replacing of equipment or data, or any costs for either. This site and its material are provided on an "as is" basis without any warranties of any kind. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, SHALL THE EDITOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION USE OF OR RELIANCE ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THIS BLOG - WHETHER BASED ON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY AND WHETHER THE EDITOR IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES - INTERRUPTIONS, ERRORS, DEFECTS, MISTAKES, OMISSIONS, DELETIONS OF FILES, DELAYS IN OPERATION OR TRANSMISSION, NONDELIVERY OF INFORMATION, DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNICATIONS, OR ANY OTHER FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE. THE EDITOR OF THIS BLOG DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, AND THE WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. YOU AGREE THAT ANY RECOURSE FOR DISSATISFACTION OR PROBLEMS WITH THIRD-PARTY GOODS OR SERVICES WILL BE SOUGHT FROM THE THIRD-PARTY PROVIDER DIRECTLY.To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, you will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless The EDITOR OF THIS BLOG (and any of her subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, distributors, third party providers, and licensors) from and against all claims, liability, and expenses, including attorney's fees and legal fees and costs, arising out of your use of the site or your breach of any provision of this agreement. The Editor reserves the right, in her sole discretion and at her own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter otherwise subject to indemnification by you. You will cooperate as fully as reasonably required in the defense of any claim.This agreement, your performance under it, and any disputes arising under it shall be governed exclusively by the laws of internet usage as stated by the federal courts of the United States. You agree to pay all legal fees incurred by any legal action filed against the Editor of this blog in any action in which she as the defendant prevails.Any information collected about your visit to the web site is non-personal in nature and used solely for the purpose of helping us to assess the areas of our site that are most useful to visitors, and therefore need to be as complete and user-friendly as possible. In the area of listserv sign-ups, contribution data, and/or any other email or membership sign-up option now or in the future on our site, all information is collected on a strictly voluntary and confidential basis, and will not be sold, used or released for any third-party purpose. We do not permit any transactions from or by any person who is 13 years old or younger.